Man Sentenced for Tattooing Toddler; Should Piercing a Baby's Ears Be Illegal Too?
-April Danie ls Hussar, BettyConfidential.com
Well here's a nice cheery tale of sterling parenthood out of Georgia: A miserable excuse for a man tattooed the letters "DB" on his 2-year-old son's arm. You might assume, as I did, that DB stands for the father's initials (Dirt Bag), but you would be wrong; DB is "Daddy's Boy" -- isn't that just heartwarming?
According to Newser, "The father-who told police he was drunk and didn't remember tattooing the letters-is no longer allowed to have contact with the toddler."
OH THAT EXPLAINS IT. Eugene Ashley, 26, was so drunk he didn't realize what he was doing when he gave his innocent child indelible, painful proof of what an a-hole his father is. Totally understandable! I mean, don't you hate it when you have that extra glass of Chardonnay at your play date and whoops! out comes the tattoo gun! Happens to me All. The.Time.
After a little digging I discovered that this moron who was actually arrested a year ago, when Child Services paid a visit to his home (surely an uplifting back-story there as well. And where exactly was mommy?) and discovered the tattoo on the boy, who was by then 3 years old. But now Daddy has finally had his day in court: he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of tattooing a minor, and was finally fined $300 and sentenced to a year probation. Frankly that's a ridiculous punishment -- I don't understand why it's only a misdemeanor. Just look at this photo:
I'm with the district attorney, who called the case "egregious." Chopping off Daddy's hands seems like more fitting a punishment in my book. (In general I'm a liberal, pacifist-y type; when it comes to child abuse I tend to lean more toward draconian, medieval torture methods. Bring back the thumb screws!)
The judge, however, had an intriguing perspective. "I am trying to figure out why this is illegal," she said. "Is it illegal to pierce your little girl's ears?"
Well hey now. She actually makes an interesting point, no? I will say now I'm not a fan of piercing infants' ears, but I know plenty of perfectly lovely people who do it and I'm not going to argue about it here. It certainly doesn't seem anything like giving a drunken tattoo ... or ... does it?
What's the fundamental difference, really? Would it be different if it was a nice looking tattoo?
What do you think?
More from BettyConfidential:
